clbullar@ingr.com (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes:
>Finally, someone thinks architecturally, that is, systematically,
>which is the point of the symbol grounding article
There are lots of ways to think architecturally without having to fall
for the "systematic" virus. (Heck, I think a lot of architects would be
the first to find fault with the systematic nature of building in the US
today.)
Reading the Harnad article, he hedges pretty severely on how systematic
an approach he's creating. "If both tests are passed.... This is still
no guarantee... if the system's behavioral capacities are lifesize..."
These are nice thoughts, but it's still worth questioning what the
"symbol system" actually contributes here and whether a formal system
per se is necessary.
>We all know XML is only a syntax, but coupling it to behaviors is what
>XML systems are about and what the notion of symbol grounding is
>about.
You seem to be pushing for a much more general notion of symbol
grounding ("Why and how should we combine these and what combinations
are meaningful?") that I don't find plausible or worthwhile. Sticking
with the syntax lets us abandon grand and complex visions about sharing
semantics and get work done through more local mechanisms.
"Coupling [XML] to behaviors" in a systematic way is an invitation to
pretensions of global meaning that seem primarily to waste a lot of time
on www-tag.
>No identity without identification. No meaning without code. That's
>the web because that's a computer. Debate the details as long as
>necessary.
You might have enjoyed Bill Kent's keynote at Extreme last week. It did
a nice job of exploring how identity is a problem, and how we can still
work despite the painfully real nature of that problem. In large part,
it suggested (to me) that we should lower our expectations about what
identifiers can do for us.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org